THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
Sometimes, the strangest things can remind you of teachable moments. For me, it was running into someone from my past that jogged my memory.
About eight years ago, I was asked to take over a Senior Babe Ruth program that had no direction. This summer baseball team featured kids aged 15-19 years old. I had played in the same program during a chunk of my years in the same age range, so I deemed it a good opportunity to give back to the community and accepted the no-pay volunteer job. Here's some background information that may help put this program into perspective. In my hometown (where this position existed), the number of kids playing baseball was dwindling thanks to a number of factors. Lacrosse and other sports were becoming more popular. Travel teams in other sports were asking their players to dedicate their time to their team throughout the entire year. The popularity of baseball was down in general due to the pace of the sport and the attention span of our youth. Put simply, there were fewer and fewer kids who wanted to play baseball, and it was dangerously close to this program not existing. Further, this program was second tier to our American Legion program. If you lived in my county and played baseball in the summer, you had two options: American Legion (the varsity of the summer) or Senior Babe Ruth (the JV). Legion baseball was quickly getting out of hand, too. The people playing (and their parents) were either too serious or too ridiculous to allow for the kids to have fun or succeed. This was an opportunity for me to show that this "lower level" program was still quality and offered kids almost the same experience as Legion, albeit at a lower dedication of time. During the first three years at the helm of the program in my hometown, we won two championships. The first year was a bit of a transition, but years two and three proved fruitful. Interestingly enough, after the first year, as kids saw that we meant business and weren't the cutthroat coaches found in Legion, the players from Legion were quitting that team and coming to play for me. One of the biggest catalysts was that Legion was a 7-day-per-week dedication; Senior Babe Ruth was three or four days at most. Teenage boys had the chance to be themselves; they could hold jobs, go on vacation, etc. We never practiced or played on Fridays or Saturdays either. The only thing we didn't do was pay these kids a decent salary! Each year also had a war of attrition. If 15 kids signed up for the team, we were lucky to get 10 to show up to any given game. By the time playoffs came around in late July/early August, we were fighting just to field a team. It certainly was frustrating, but it was also the price of doing business. If you wanted to attract teenage boys to play baseball, you had to offer certain concessions in your negotiations, including the flexibility to miss games if they met certain requirements, such as giving proper notice. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best we would get. In my first year, I actually had a kid who was a very young 15 year old. In fact, he was the youngest kid on the team. He looked like a middle linebacker; he had decent athletic ability and a good knowledge of the game. He kept his mouth shut and did everything I asked him. His parents, on the other hand, probably caused my therapy bill to increase by at least 200% that year. For example, I had two first basemen on my team that year, one of which being this kid in question. When both were there, I would alternate them each game. So if one played first, the other would be the extra hitter (an adopted rule that allowed an additional player to be in the starting lineup). The next game, I switched them. Plus, the young kid also pitched; so if he was playing first and then went in to pitch, it was pretty easy to put the other kid at first base. If the young kid's parents saw that he was only the extra hitter and not playing first base that game, I would have to listen to the parents complain about that while I was trying to manage the game. At the end of that year, I had to nominate 16 year old kids from my team for an All-Star team in the county. When word of this got out, the parents of the 15 year old contacted me and requested that I nominate their son for the 16 year old team. I compared his stats for that season to those of the kids I had planned on nominating and saw they were not that good, but I also knew that this may be a battle not worth fighting. When I submitted my nominations, I wrote down four names: the three kids who deserved it and the 15 year old. I included a note saying this kid was only 15 and probably didn't deserve the nomination, but that he should be at least considered. The manager emailed me and said he would consider him, but that he would not take the 15 year old over another deserving 16 year old kid in the league. I completely understood and thanked him for at least taking it off my hands. The manager ended up not taking the 15 year old. When word of this got back to his parents, my phone began to ring excessively. Both of his parents called me multiple times throughout the few hours after hearing the news and asking for an explanation. Thank God for voicemail. I eventually emailed the parents and explained that I had nominated him, but that it was up to the manager of the team to select him, which he did not do. The parents chewed out the manager of that team for not selecting him, then turned around and chewed me out for not doing enough to get their son on the team. That was enough for me to finally stand up to them and cite their son's statistics and how he really didn't deserve to be nominated anyway. The email I received in response was enough to cause a grown man to cry. I was called a pejorative manager; my integrity as a player, a coach, and an umpire was belittled. Insults were hurled at my parents who held no stake in this matter whatsoever. The parents of this kid made it so personal that they still flip me off if they see me in public to this day. By the time year three arrived, we had 20 kids registered officially for the team. It was a challenge to please everyone, but I did my best to get everybody into every game. I utilized the designated hitter and extra hitter rules to allow 11 players to play at any given time. I substituted players in at reasonable times. And if I didn't get a player in a game (due to it being shortened for the mercy rule or for rain, for example), that player started the next game. The players all seemed to be fine with it, and I encouraged an open dialogue between them and me to make sure this was okay. Of course, you couldn't please everyone. When one kid realized he wasn't getting into the first game of the season since he was our closer and I was going to give our starter the opportunity to finish the game, I never saw the kid again. But I didn't lose sleep over this kid or similar kids...if the kid didn't was going to use that as ammunition to quit the team, I probably dodged a bullet. One time, a player showed up to a game five minutes before first pitch. He didn't get into that game. He then asked me why he didn't get into the game. When I told him it was because he showed up five minutes before first pitch, he got confused and walked away. Everybody else had been there about 75 minutes before first pitch; I wasn't going to diminish their playing time to please the one kid who couldn't even bother to come up with a good excuse! When we reached the championship game at the end of the third season, my roster of 20 was no longer an accurate representation of my team. I had 12 kids show up to the final game, and one of the kids forgot his contacts, so he was only used as a pinch runner. (I give that kid credit, though; he was mature enough to admit he forgot them and didn't want to put the team in jeopardy.) So I really only had 11 kids at that game. And we won our second consecutive championship that night. The next year, a new coordinator was elected to serve on my hometown's board of directors for our local baseball association. He was essentially my supervisor. I had known him for years. His wife worked for my father. I taught two of his three kids music lessons. We've met. As kids started registering for my team in that fourth year, the coordinator emailed me and said he wanted to split my team into two teams. He cited the fact that I had 20 kids last year and that he heard complaints from parents that the kids weren't getting enough playing time as a result. I was floored. I sent the coordinator the spreadsheets I meticulously kept over the past three years, citing which kids were registered, which kids showed up, and which kids played. I had hoped to prove to him that three years of experience would show that 20 kids was actually not enough for two teams based on the inability for kids to show up. If only 12 of 20 kids would show up to the championship game, isn't that enough evidence to show that splitting a team in half may not work? However, as a reasonable person, I offered to compromise. I told him that if 30 kids officially registered and paid, I would look to split the team into two, assuming we had enough players at each position to do it without putting the kids at risk of injury or diminishing their fun. He agreed to this. Then he split the team when we had 24 registered. To say that relationship would be permanently strained is an understatement. I pleaded with him to honor his end of the deal. Rather than do so, he had the coaches he appointed to the new second team fight the battle for him. The insults started again. I'll never forget the parting line of one of the coaches. "All you care about are championships!" Some battles are just not worth fighting because they fall on deaf ears. No matter how much you try to reason with someone, they refuse to consider that the other person might have an argument with substance, even if they didn't agree with it. It's like trying to argue with someone who refuses to believe that George Washington was the first US President: you can show that person every history book in the world, but their stubbornness will prevent logic and truth from prevailing. We tried to make it work that year, but what I had predicted came to fruition. With 24 registered players and only 12 on my team, we couldn't even get 8 to show up for a playoff game. In a league where every team makes the playoffs, my team couldn't even participate in the playoffs because some people accused me of only caring about championships and decided to break up the team. Maybe jealousy played a part. Did these other parents see the team succeed under my guidance and decide it was their time to try to take my job? The job didn't even pay me anything...what was in it for them? Was it just the chance to live vicariously through their sons? When my team was facing the problem of not having enough players to even play a game, I asked my team what they wanted me to do. The players didn't have an answer. The parents also didn't. The person I ran into today was the only one who did have an answer. His answer was simple: "Put on your big boy pants and get it done." Yeah, because that solves everything. I submitted my resignation after that season. I could see the writing on the wall. A group of parents were swooping in and claiming this program as their own once they saw that I had done the dirty work and turned it around. It's an unfortunate phenomenon that happens too frequently: nobody wants to do the work to create something special or to revitalize something that has faded, but once the work is done, everyone comes out of hiding and tries to claim it as their own. And since the program was nothing more than a volunteer job with no contracts under the heading of a non-profit community organization, I had nothing. It was free game, and I lost it. The frustration that comes with such an experience raises a very interesting question. Why would anyone volunteer to do something like this if this possibility is lurking? Are we blind to it when we are young and inexperienced? Do we neglect it when our hearts tell us to do something good for others? Or are their other motives? How do we battle people who accuse us of wrongdoing when we try to do the right thing, especially in the name of sportsmanship? Managing a baseball team is not an easy job; the balance of trying to put your team in a competitive position to win while also providing equal value to the playing time of each player (especially when they are kids and paying to be on the team) is not easy. It's akin to an orchestra where everyone pays membership dues to join: the director then has to decide who performs in what chair and who takes various solos, and if someone paying money isn't pleased by the director's decision, who's to stop that person from just leaving unsatisfied? It's not like a school team where money does not determine who makes a team and who doesn't, as well as who plays and who doesn't. If you were to make an argument that this job is impossible, you'd have a point. Sportsmanship is a topic that we usually reference when looking at events that occur during the course of a game or competition, as if they were "between the lines," if you will. We specifically look at it as something that occurs between the two teams or competitors and their associated coaches. We are just now starting to apply it to the behavior of fans in a vast number of scenarios. And we are also trying (as described in some of my previous posts) to make sure it applies to sports officials, too. But who would have thought that it could apply to the administrators who are responsible for just the business side of athletic teams? The parents of the 15 year old who didn't make the All-Star team didn't understand the sportsmanship side of considering that there were other kids who probably deserved to make that team. They didn't see it as an opportunity to explain to their kid that sometimes we have to accept that we can't always get what we want. The coaches and coordinator who decided to split the team in half didn't understand the sportsmanship side of putting the experience of the kids ahead of their own. They saw an opportunity to credit themselves with success at the expense of others; thanks to them, half of the kids didn't get a chance to play at the end of the season. Is it possible that all these people thought they were doing the right thing the entire time? Yes. Anything's possible. What I write here may be the exact opposite of what they were thinking. Maybe we'll never agree on these specific items. I can only report from my experience. Since I quit that volunteer coaching job, I haven't coached another youth baseball team. Yet, according to another coach, all I care about are championships. I'm sure someone will accuse me of just taking my ball and going home, right?
0 Comments
If you know who Bob Davidson is, then you're either part of Major League Baseball, a resident of the greater Philadelphia area, or related to him.
He wears number 61 on his sleeve. He used to have a lot more hair than he has now. And he is probably casually hated by a few too many people. Davidson is a Major League Baseball umpire. He has a history of calling balks on pitchers as if he were paid by the balk, hence the name "Balkin' Bob Davidson." For the longest time, he was probably hated everywhere he went within the game. He was the "crotchety old man who told people to get off his lawn" of baseball. Even if you don't understand baseball, you could tell a lot of this just by how he goes down into his crouch behind the plate. It looks like he is trying to flex his muscles and defecate simultaneously. Davidson's history is probably enough to warrant a published autobiography upon his retirement. On August 23, 1989, Davidson ejected Youppi!, the mascot of the Montreal Expos. On October 20, 1992, Davidson kicked a call in Game 3 of the 1992 World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Atlanta Braves. Davidson ruled that Deion Sanders was not tagged out on a controversial play in the 4th inning. Perhaps it is better explained this way: Davidson was one of the umpires who resigned in 1999 as part of a failed mass resignation during labor negotiations. As such, he was out of professional baseball until 2003, when he resumed umpiring in minor league baseball. In December 2004, he was guaranteed the first vacancy on the Major League umpire staff, which wouldn't occur until 2007. Davidson got the chance to work the 2006 World Baseball Classic, but controversy would find him there as well. In one incident, team Mexico was arguing with Davidson over a ball that was called foul when they thought it should have been a home run. They even retrieved the ball and tried to bring it out to Davidson to show him the paint that was scraped off the foul pole. Later in the tournament, Davidson had to overturn a call due to the wrong umpire making a call on a tag-up appeal. On September 8, 2010, Davidson achieved a holy trinity of ejections by ejecting two players (one from each team) and a drunk fan, who used a homophobic slur towards a player. On May 15, 2012, Davidson got into an argument with what seemed like the entire Philadelphia Phillies team due to him accidentally being in the way of the Phillies' catcher trying to retrieve a wild pitch. Phillies manager Charlie Manuel was ejected by Davidson in the ensuing argument. Major League Baseball suspended Davidson one game because of "repeated violations of the Office of the Commissioner's standards for situation handling," potentially culminating from several incidents which included Davidson's conduct during that specific argument. For what it's worth, Manuel was also suspended for one game. Davidson made his MLB debut in 1982 in the National League and worked his only World Series in 1992. He has worked three All-Star Games, the World Baseball Classic in 2006, and a smattering of other postseason assignments. So why are we discussing Balkin' Bob? Because it's time we gave him some credit. On Tuesday night while in Philadelphia, where Davidson himself admitted he has a horrible reputation, Balkin' Bob ejected a fan for the second time in his career. Davidson's account differed significantly from the fan's account, which is to be expected, but if we believe Davidson's account, and we have no reason not to, the language that was used, although quite creative, significantly intensified. Give Davidson credit. Following his suspension a few years ago, Davidson appears to have worked diligently on improving himself. Last year, the majority of his ejections were not over the correctness of a call, but over unsportsmanlike conduct stemming from incidents such as pitchers throwing at hitters. He only has one ejection this year, which was over balls and strikes, and his call was correct. For the record, Davidson is not the only umpire to eject a fan. The newly retired Tim Welke did it in 2014 as well. So it's not like he's setting a precedent. But with this complete change in character, one must ask: is Bob Davidson becoming the moral police? Or maybe he's just becoming more relaxed in his old age? It's incredibly interesting to see an umpire actually heed the lesson from his suspension a few years ago and mellow out. As for the incident this week and the fan in question, the bigger moral question is why we've let these unruly fans behave in these ways for so long without taking action? Is it because each of these fans has paid to be there, giving them the right to do anything they want so long as it's not illegal? Are the fans allowed to cheer, boo, yell, or heckle at any player or official since they are the reason the salaries get paid in the first place? Do security officials not intervene so as to not discourage fans from getting upset that they can't act however they want, thus deterring those fans from wanting to continue to pay money to go to games? Or should we look at this logically? Why do we let one unruly fan ruin it for everyone? Isn't a ballgame played in a public place where we are supposed to act like normal people are supposed to act in public? Why are families supposed to sit in designated "family sections" so they are shielded from the rude behavior of drunk jerks? Who actually thinks that parents shouldn't bring their kids to games? The funny thing is that each of these fans who were ejected by umpires were found by the press following the incident. It's a shame that we have to give them their 15 minutes of fame in the first place, but each one of them defended themselves by saying they weren't trying to offend anyone, they didn't actually say anything that bad, they were misheard, and they were certainly not drunk. What makes this cycle even more sad is that the inappropriate behavior of fans at major league ballparks trickles down to the fields that host children as they play youth baseball. If a fan thinks he or she can act that way while at a professional game, that same fan is prone to act in the same manner while watching their 10-year-old son. What Bob Davidson did is actually what some of us amateur umpires already do: eject fans (no matter if it's a direct ejection or a request to a field director or security officer to remove a fan) to set an example that fans have the same responsibility as everyone else present to act in a dignified manner. Sure, you have the right to cheer as well as boo (hopefully only on the professional stage for the latter). But you don't have the right to act like a fool at a ballgame, much in the same way you don't have the right to act that way anywhere in public. Before I hit the recap, let's go over my picks prior to this season.
Before Season:AL East: New York AL Central: Kansas City AL West: Houston AL Wild Cards: Texas & Toronto AL On The Bubble: Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles NL East: New York NL Central: Chicago NL West: San Francisco NL Wild Cards: Arizona & Pittsburgh NL On The Bubble: Washington, St. Louis, Los Angeles Results:AL East: Boston AL Central: Cleveland AL West: Texas AL Wild Card: Baltimore & Toronto AL On The Bubble: New York, Detroit, Seattle NL East: Washington NL Central: Chicago NL West: Los Angeles NL Wild Card: San Francisco & New York NL On The Bubble: Miami, St. Louis, Colorado If you're scoring at home, I got one AL Wild Card right along with the NL Central. My other AL Wild Card team won the West. My other two NL Division Winners both won the NL Wild Card spots. Three out of my six "bubble" teams made the playoffs. I also stated that the Yankees would need at least 88 wins to sniff the playoffs. They finished with 84, obviously missing the playoffs. Both AL Wild Card teams finished with 89 wins. Pretty darn close on that one, at least! As for the Yankees, there are a multitude of questions and things to discuss. We can nitpick all off-season, but for now, to get the ball rolling, I'll start with what I think are the three biggest questions the Yankees MUST address before next season (in no particular order). 1. Who Is Your Outfield? The Yankees have a serious problem in the outfield. Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury, both known for speed, have stopped running and are not hitting for power the way traditional power hitters would. They have essentially become worthless placeholders in desperate need of an upgrade. The funny thing is that if they were to start stealing bases again, we wouldn't be having this conversation! We'd simply put Aaron Judge in right field and call it a day! But the Yankees seem to be telling their base runners to put on the brakes while waiting for the magical 3-run homer to save the day. And if that's not the case, then these guys just forgot how to run. Gardner is the worse of the two. He only runs with two strikes, usually on 0-2 or 1-2 pitches, allowing teams to pitch out and catch him. He certainly gives you great defense in left field, but he does not match the same value offensively. We all understand that base stealing is not going to be successful 100% of the time. However, even if it's successful 60-70% of the time, the Yankees can begin to score a few more runs, especially if Gary Sanchez continues to hit. It's unfair to expect him to keep hitting the ball over the fence, so he will eventually just get singles and doubles, which is where having a runner in scoring position will pay off. Gardner also looks like he is the one who will be traded. It looks impossible to trade Jacoby Ellsbury based on his contract and age. Gardner has a much more team-friendly deal at a reasonable rate, so with the gluttony of young outfield talent coming in next year, I would be shocked to see Gardner in pinstripes next year. For whatever reason, the team still has a love affair with Aaron Hicks, which is like holding onto hope that your ex-girlfriend will change and come back. News flash: she's crazy and won't. Hicks may have a superior arm, but his defense is horrendous, and his bat never flourished, even if the argument was that he needed consistent playing time. If the Yankees are smart and are thinking along the same lines as me, I'd wager that Ellsbury will be my starting center fielder again, but then a competition of Aaron Judge, Mason Williams, and Clint Frazier will battle for the two corner spots. 2. Who is Michael Pineda? At the time, the trade for Michael Pineda made sense. The Yankees jettisoned the prospect bust of the no-miss Jesus Montero for a young pitcher coming off an All-Star year. Unfortunately, injuries kept Pineda off the field for the first two years of his tenure in the Bronx, and the resulting product was a mixture of pine tar and inconsistency. The Yankees always seem to have a pitcher who is the equivalent of "the little girl with the curl." Just like A.J. Burnett before him, Pineda looks like he can throw a no-hitter one day, then can't get out of the 4th inning the next. It has more often been the latter. However, when you have the stuff Pineda has with a fastball that has incredible velocity and movement, it's tough to give up on the guy. Normally, you might be able to make the argument that Pineda could be slotted as your fifth starter and could continue to be a work in progress. However, the rest of your rotation just doesn't look as solid right now with Masahiro Tanaka, CC Sabathia, Luis Cessa, Chad Green, Luis Severino, and Bryan Mitchell all trying to prove they should be mainstays. This might be the hardest decision the Yankees have all winter: is Michael Pineda a fixable project? If the Yankees sign or trade for another dominant starter, I'd be they try one more time to fix him. But the Yankees also like this youth movement going. The trade for Cessa and Green is starting to pay dividends, as Justin Wilson could not replicate his success this year in Detroit. If the Yankees project two fifths of their starters to be rookies again, maybe Pineda is packaged with Brett Gardner for a pitcher? 3. How much for Aroldis Chapman? When Aroldis Chapman was traded, he made it clear he would absolutely consider a return to the Bronx. And for most of the season following the departure of Chapman and Andrew Miller, it looked like Dellin Betances could hold things together. In September, that was proven wrong. Betances is a great pitcher with filthy stuff. But a pitcher that tall has two problems no matter who it is: he can't hold runners on, and his mechanics can get screwed up easily. Both were huge issues for him as the season came winding down, and both prove that he is probably better suited in the 7th or 8th inning. When Adam Warren and Tyler Clippard both came back this season, the Yankees proved that success in the bullpen was not always defined with dominance, but rather with knowledge and experience sprinkled with a bit of guile. In fact, some might argue that it was Betances' ineffectiveness down the stretch that ultimately cost the Yankees a shot at the Wild Card. The game he blew to start the Boston series was the turning point and the beginning of the end. So it's fair to ask whether or not a reunion with Chapman is in the cards. Chapman is the kind of guy who will clearly go wherever the money takes him. Further, he has shown to like New York, especially since the Yankees took a chance on a guy with a domestic violence history. Could the Yankees decide to send a message and not re-sign a guy who was suspended for domestic violence? Sure, especially if they believe they can fix Betances. But the Yankees are already trying to decide if they can fix Pineda. How many guys can you successfully expect to fix? Bottom line: youth served the Yankees well this year. Regarding these three issues, if I had to choose right now, I'd bet Gardner and Pineda are both traded and Chapman is wearing pinstripes again next year. As a lifelong New York Yankees fan, I thought I was supposed to dislike Terry Francona. He managed the rival Red Sox for a long time, including helping them break a curse that was supposed to last forever.
However, since his departure from Boston and his resurgence in Cleveland, a few things have happened over the years that have made me take a step back and realize just how good he is. And this week, he proved it a few more times. "Tito," as he is known in reference to his father, has always been a players' manager. He sticks up for his guys; he manages by his gut more often than not; and he fights for wins as if he was still competing on the field. People in the game laud him for that along with his track record. But whereas a new age guy like Joe Maddon gets so much more attention, it's Francona who is slowly changing the game yet again, and possibly doing so just in time to get another championship ring. Let's back up for a second and mention something he did earlier this year that garners some kudos. (Look back in this blog's archives for the full article on this specific incident.) In a game against the Houston Astros, umpire Jim Joyce missed a call that ultimately went down as one of his blatant misses. After all, this is the guy who missed the final call in a perfect game and garnered attention for it. I love Jim Joyce; I think he's a fantastic umpire who gives players and coaches the right to explain themselves before responding, and players and coaches respect him for that. He is consistently voted one of the most liked umpires in the game by the players. But he kicked this call: he missed a foul ball and called it a live ball and allowed runs to score...just go back and read the entry or look at the play so I don't have to rehash it! In the postgame press conference, Francona went on record as stating that Joyce gives everything he's got, and he deserves as much respect as anyone, even if he missed the call. Tito waxed poetically about Jim Joyce while he was down, which is something he didn't have to do, especially since the call favored the Indians. Francona may even come off a little fake for doing so. But his comments were all about respect for Joyce, even when he misses a call. Over the course of the final two months of the regular season and into the postseason, Francona was given an early Christmas gift: Andrew Miller. Traded from the Yankees, Miller slotted into the Cleveland bullpen like he had been there for years. He has become an unstoppable force, possibly even more so than the great Mariano Rivera because Tito is deploying Miller in so many places. Whereas most teams feared the Yankees because Rivera would come in at the end of the game, the Tribe is garnering success because the opponents don't know when Miller is coming in! Teams feel they have to score before Miller comes in, then can't score when he's in or after he's done pitching. It tightens a team to the point of stress and an inability to score runs. In doing so, what Francona has done is started to facilitate a discussion that has been under the tablecloths for a few years now. Normally, the best relief pitcher is considered the closer in a bullpen, and he is reserved for save situations in a game (or when the team is at home and the score is tied after eight innings). With that model being the consistent factor in most bullpens, roles then get defined in a backwards manner. Pitchers who are almost as dominant will be baptized as the "7th inning guy" or the "8th inning guy" to create a formula where a three-headed monster comes in to close out a game, meaning the starting pitcher only needs to give the team 6 good innings and turn the game over with a lead to a bullpen who is supposed to not give up any more runs. Other roles are then defined from there, such as the long reliever/spot starter and the "LOOGY," or Lefty One Out GuY. However, as these roles are more defined, the stress and expectation level becomes higher, and thus, when the bullpen fails, more criticism follows. Whether he meant to do it or not, Francona is now telling everyone that your "closer," or your best weapon out of the bullpen, can be deployed anywhere. Your best pitcher needs to come in when the game really needs to be saved, whether that's in the 6th inning or the 9th inning. Is the final inning really that stressful if nobody gets on base? It certainly isn't that stressful when the 7th inning has two guys on with nobody out and you need to hold onto a one-run lead! In those situations is now when Tito calls on Miller, and Miller has proven time and again that he is amazing at what he does. Since most sports are copycat leagues, will we now see managers like Joe Maddon start to use closers in these situations? We almost started to see glimpses of it in the National League playoffs thus far. Dodgers manager Dave Roberts used closer Kenley Jansen in the 7th inning of Game 5 of the NLDS against the Washington Nationals and hoped to get a rare (or rare these days, as it was common a few decades ago) nine-out save, only to have to bring ace and hero Clayton Kershaw in to actually get the save. Joe Maddon brought Aroldis Chapman into the game in the 8th inning a few times this postseason, only to have him give up the lead both times. If the analytic department of each team needs some homework over Christmas break, this is what they'll examine. Finally, Tito discussed the injury to starting pitcher Trevor Bauer that forced him to be moved from Game 2 to Game 3 of the ALCS. Bauer lacerated his pinky on his right hand while working with his drone and required stitches, thus pushing his start back. Many people started to equate this to stupid situations that caused players to face similar consequences, such as Aaron Boone tearing his ACL in a pickup basketball game following the 2003 season, which caused the Yankees to void his contract and trade for Alex Rodriguez. Francona, on the other hand, came out differently. When asked about this in a press conference, Tito defended Bauer, citing that "life happens." It was unfortunate and would be preferred if it didn't happen, but players cannot be stopped from being themselves. It's not like he was hurt in an alley at 3am with a beer bottle. He was working on a hobby. For that, Tito believed he shouldn't be chastised. Should Bauer be a little more careful? Yes. After all, this is a guy who had a personality problem when he first broke into the big leagues. Controversy seems to surround him no matter what. But kudos to Terry Francona for understanding how life works. Instead of crying about it, he accepted it, made an adjustment, and is now sitting up two games to none in the ALCS. One final thing: how in the world is Trevor Bauer's favorite Star Wars movie "The Phantom Menace?" The only way he can redeem himself from that is to tell me he religiously watched "The Clone Wars" and currently watches "Star Wars Rebels" now. Andrew Toles swings and hits a line drive to right field. Jason Heyward fields it on a bounce and fires home. Willson Contreras catches it and goes to tag Adrian Gonzalez. Angel Hernandez calls him out.
This statement of facts led to a challenge by the Los Angeles Dodgers after believing that Gonzalez had touched home plate before Contreras had tagged him. Hernandez and crew chief Gary Cederstrom went to the headsets to talk to Paul Nauert, the umpire in New York in charge of making the final call. The review lasted longer than expected. Most people had time to get another hot dog. Finally, the decision game down. He's out; the call stands. If you read any commentary on this story, listened to any talking head, or watched the replays available to the fans, you might think that they got the call wrong. News flash: replay worked. Some of you probably just closed this article and vowed never to read this again. Well, I'm sorry to hear that. If you're still with me, you'll be intrigued. This play in Game 4 of the National League Championship Series is a prime example of how Instant Replay has already become the exact antithesis of what it was meant to be. Replay was instituted in baseball as a way to right the obvious wrongs, not the "bang-bang" plays that could go either way. Unfortunately, teams have begun to use replay for the "bang-bang" play. Consider this. When replay was introduced, the thought process was that a manager would come out to argue a call that was an obvious miss and immediately ask for a challenge. Instead, in the first year of replay, teams began to out-think the system and set up replay review centers of their own in the stadiums, which would then inform the dugout personnel if a call was worthy of a challenge. Managers were waiting a good 60 seconds before deciding if a challenge was necessary. And people think baseball is being slowed down by conferences, pitchers stepping off the rubber or throwing to bases, and batters stepping out of the box. Why is it that nobody who has a problem with the time of baseball is complaining about the time for replay when the system was not meant to be used in this fashion? Let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Have a percentage of plays that might normally be considered "bang-bang" that were challenged been made right by the use of replay? Yes. Not all "bang-bang" plays are considered equal. Sometimes, an umpire moves an inch too far in one direction to try to get into position and misses the split second of a foot hitting a bag before the ball hits the glove. That's not an obvious miss, but thanks to replay, that sort of call can be rectified. And we should be thankful for it. But when the camera angles available to both the fans and the replay officials do not provide clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was wrong, that call cannot be overturned. It is not confirmed, but it is declared to be a call that "stands." No evidence was available to clearly and properly confirm the call was right or wrong. In the case of Gonzalez, Contreras, Hernandez, and Nauert, the on-field call of "out" had to stand because there was no clear and convincing angle (that's 100% correct, mind you) that shows that the ball in the mitt of Contreras was not on the person of Gonzalez when his hand touched home plate. So why do fans and the media get upset by this? Simple: the court of public opinion never aligns with the court of law, possibly due to the incompetence of the average person to understand how life works. Consider the cases that go through our criminal justice system in America. It is our belief (as stated in the documents that define us as a country) that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to put an innocent man in prison. That's why defendants are "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Translation: if a good defense attorney can prove that there is a good chance his client didn't do it, then a jury has the moral obligation to acquit the defendant of the charges. The same principle applies in the instance of this replay. Unless the evidence available can clearly show that the wrong call was made on the field, then the umpire making the final call in New York must allow the call to stand. There's no way around it. "But that play was 99.99% wrong on the field!" yelled Christopher "Mad Dog" Russo. "How can you let that play stand when replay is available? What is the point of replay if not to overturn that call?" Simple: there was 0.01% reasonable doubt. The call stands. What's the old saying? Life imitates art? Or is it art imitates life? Well, one imitates the other, right?
How about sports? Are sports art? Are sports life? Do sports fit into the conversation about one imitating the other? On the surface, probably not. But here's a news flash: life imitates sports, especially when it comes to the sportsmanship of the Presidential Election of the United States of America. Have you ever stepped back to ask why sportsmanship is so poor in American society at this point in time? The answer is very complicated and probably worthy of a dissertation (or at least an HBO special...HBO, if you're reading this, I'm available). There are arguments to be made until the end of time to answer this question. In fact, I would wager that if you surveyed ten different people and asked them to answer this question, it's very possible you could get ten different answers. Perhaps those answers would range from hazing and bullying to parental influence to imitation of idols to the self-centered belief of entitlement we perpetuate as a country. However, one thing is for sure: if you watch the professional competitions we televise in this country under the heading of "sports," you may have enough evidence to write the book on poor sportsmanship. Why is it that we get a story every week about two fans fighting at an NFL game? Why do we hear about parents and coaches berating officials at their 10-year-old kids' baseball games? Why do people suffer from injuries and trauma (both physical and emotional) due to hazing by their teammates? Why do regular fans get their brains beaten in when they root for the visiting team? Why do people put their heads through their television set when their team loses the Super Bowl? It starts on the field. On Monday night this week, we had a controversial call in the football game between the Buffalo Bills and the Seattle Seahawks when Seahawks corner back Richard Sherman was playing Special Teams to try to block a field goal attempt by the Bills to close out the first half. Sherman jumped before the snap of the ball, clearly committing a penalty of encroachment, which caused the officials to whistle the play dead. However, as per the rote of the tandem of long-snapper, holder, and kicker, once the ball was snapped, kicker Dan Carpenter approached the ball held still on the ground and went through his motion to kick it. Sherman continued to sprint around the line after getting a huge illegal jump and dove to block the kick. The problem was that he jumped right into Carpenter and injured him. The officials did not call any sort of penalty other than the offside penalty. However, trainers rushed out to tend to Carpenter. By rule, however, since a player was injured on the play, causing the clock to stop and for trainers to tend to him on the field, and the cause of the injury was not a penalty of roughing/running into the kicker or similar, Carpenter had to come out of the game for one play. A whole mess later (which is another story for another time), Carpenter eventually came back in and missed the field goal to end the half. Sherman is no stranger to these types of arrogant controversies. Later in the game, when he made an interception, he taunted Bills head coach Rex Ryan, causing Ryan to yell at Sherman not only for the immaturity of the taunt, but also for the perceived dirty play to injure his kicker. Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll was later asked about it, to which he responded that Ryan should worry about coaching his own team. Ryan's response? To remind the pot to stop calling the kettle black. Players like Sherman (and perpetuated by coaches like Carroll) are the epitome of what is creating havoc in the game of football. Other players like Colin Kaepernick and his protests of perceived racial injustice cause the same sort of response, causing those who watch football to create an opinion and become divided among their fellow fans who do not necessarily agree with said opinion. The dirty play and the unnecessary conflict that gets picked up by the media and broadcast to the world perpetuates a downward spiral of poor sportsmanship in all facets of life since the fans of these games have to live their lives outside of sports. It doesn't stop with football. In baseball, the practice of hitting batters on purpose, or "plunking," is a stupid understood and unwritten rule about "protecting" players from being bullied by pitchers who can't control their pitches. If you hit a player on the other team, that team's pitcher will hit someone on your team. You hit the third baseman? That team's pitcher will hit your third baseman. You hit their best player? Your best player is getting hit. And if you're in the National League, watch out: pitchers have to bat. So it might be you getting hit. And don't even get me started on hockey. This is a game that actually allows fighting. The penalty for fighting is a few minutes in a penalty box, the equivalent of being sent to your room for an hour when you were a kid. In the other sports, fighting gets you ejected, fined, and possibly suspended. In hockey, you're expected to fight. Your teammates, your coaches, your opponents, and even the officials are all expecting you to drop the gloves at some point that night. If that isn't the perfect description of how society allows idiocy to remain in our lives, then I don't know what else is...other than politics. Ironically enough, our political system is the equivalent of hockey. If you are a politician, you are expected to be critical, demonstrative, and down right mean and nasty to your opponent to get your way. Debates between politicians are seen as verbal wrestling matches, or perhaps as fights during a hockey game. Smear campaigns are the equivalent of mud-slinging. Everyone is expected to fight dirty, and the last man standing, all bruised and bloodied and covered in whatever substance was used to fight, gets their way or gets elected. There is no better example to demonstrate this than the 2016 Presidential Election. What we have seen between the top two candidates (who don't even deserve to have their names mentioned here based on how poor of people they both are) has been one of the most ridiculous displays of poor human behavior in the public eye. Not one person comes away as innocent or unscathed. But it doesn't stop there... The hate has spread to the constituents! Take a gander at your social media timelines, whether it be Facebook, Twitter, or whatever else you use. Do you not see the overzealous and pretentious crap that spews from the fingers and the keyboards of those to whom you are connected? Do you not see your friends, family, co-workers, news reporters, and celebrities you follow just gushing with ignorant information in support of one horrible candidate over another? And worst of all, do you not see the responses from people who do not agree with those opinions and the fights that occur as a result? The division that results between friends and family over these political opinions and our lack of compassion for our fellow man is the beginning of the downfall of our civilized society. This begs one question: why is it so hard for us to just be nicer? Why can't we each take the time to politely discuss the issues and try to see them from the perspective of the other person? We can still agree to disagree without hating each other, right? A friend of mine recently opined very similar thoughts on Facebook, but she had a terrible story. Her mother had expressed her political beliefs, probably via Facebook, and had received such horrible, mean, vile threats that she was told to "go and stick her head in an oven." I certainly understand the devil's advocate argument that this lady might have brought this on herself by decided to enter the public arena by sharing this information. Regardless, however, is that the proper response we want coming from other human beings as we try to live side by side? Is that how people get along and resolve conflict? In more specific terms, is it okay to tell a woman closer to senior citizen age than to youth to basically kill herself over who she supports? If you believe the answer is yes, I'm sorry. Here's another example. On Election Day, a popular radio host in sports talk radio in New York City revealed via Twitter that he voted for Evan McMullen, a third party candidate that unfortunately did not appear on the ballot in all states (which, in itself, is a travesty). That host was lit up on Twitter for "wasting his vote." And those people who criticized him for exercising his right to vote for whomever he pleases then began fighting among themselves over the top two candidates. It's bad enough that our current system has devolved into a two-party system that gives no realistic chance at third party candidates to be elected. But our system gives each registered voter the right to vote for whomever he or she pleases. To insult someone for what you might believe is a "wasted vote" shows just how ignorant you really are to the fact that each American has the right to do what his or her vote as he or she pleases. One final example: I have a private music student whose family is Republican. They live in a neighborhood and in a municipality that is mostly populated by Democrats. The family of my student chose to put a sign for the Republican Presidential Nominee on their front lawn, which is well within their rights. My student, a ten-year-old girl, has been getting mocked and ridiculed by her peers throughout the bus rides and in school because of her family's public beliefs. That is as absurd as discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Whether we are discussing the candidates or the constituents, the fact of the matter is that sportsmanship applies to politics. Elections, campaigns, votes, and everything in between all consist of competition between opponents. The only difference is that these things usually do not involve the same physical dexterity required for athletic competition; this is a political competition that involves ideology and the forward progress of our society. However, we have let the practices of poor sportsmanship seep from the athletic field to the political arena. And America seems to be okay with it. Consider this fact that will hopefully get the ball rolling on changing this culture. Your opponent is not your enemy. The word "enemy" has a negative connotation. The word "opponent" does not. In sports, you compete with an opponent. You don't compete against an opponent. Players on various teams, however, don't keep this in mind when they compete. Some do. Others don't. I might argue that Richard Sherman does not. Someone like Anthony Rizzo of the Chicago Cubs probably does. But the fans of these sports certainly do not understand this concept, as evidenced by the fact that fans of opposing teams get into fights, whether verbal or physical, over whose team is better. Apparently, it is impossible for these fans to appreciate both teams, even if each fan only roots for one. This behavior by fans then gets accepted into aspects of everyday living, and politics seems to be one of the greatest examples of where this acidic behavior begins to puddle. America seems to want this, though. When a story of a behind-the-scenes truce between the two major Presidential candidates was presented, nobody in America noticed. At the annual Al Smith Dinner in New York on October 20, 2016, the two candidates were in attendance and were backstage with Archbishop Timothy Dolan as the Catholic church was holding its annual fundraiser. Archbishop Dolan asked to pray with both candidates, after which they each reportedly showed a moment of unity. One complimented the other, saying she was an incredibly strong woman, and the other pleaded with the first, asking that regardless of the election, they come together to work hard at making the country strong again. But America didn't pick up this story. They brushed it off and demanded that they return to the campaign trail to hurl insults at each other. They wanted the news and media outlets to influence the facts and color them in a way that their analysis feeds them what they want to hear. They needed more conflict to assure themselves that they were supporting the right candidate, and that anyone who supported the other candidate was not only wrong, but unintelligent, uninformed, and generally stupid. And that's what they got. As I scrolled through the various social media feeds on Election Day, I found myself un-following so many people who bothered to post anything about politics or brag about the fact that they voted. It was making me sick to see the stuff that people would just hurl onto social media with no recourse and no thought as to how it might be perceived. These premature rally cries actually screamed of fear: the fear that we, as a country, nominated candidates who may be the most imperfect and unfit to lead our country in its history. Because let's face it: if you're basing it on character alone and not on policies, there isn't a single person on the ballot who should be our next President. And it didn't matter where I went, what station I watched on television, what radio show I listened to in the car, or anything else. People everywhere were just ranting and raving as to why their candidate was the best, why the other candidate was horrific, and that if you support the other candidate, you're stupid and probably not a contributing member of society. And my heart broke. Constituents hear only what they want to hear. They believe only what they want to believe, which is usually some brainwashed version of a devout pledge to one side of the political spectrum or the other. Others are too afraid to come out of their homes or to turn on the computer because they're afraid they'll get mocked for supporting a candidate that people around them do not support. We have ultimately begun to cultivate a political system that rivals the same oppressive culture that mirrors the times when racism was accepted or when religious freedom was a topic that got swept under the rug. If you decided to cast a vote on Election Day for one of the two major Presidential candidates, fine. But if you didn't spend copious amounts of time in agony, debating which of those two major candidates is the lesser of two evils, talking it over, thinking it through, and researching it, you failed. You didn't just fail as an educated American citizen, but you also failed as a poor sport. And if you're one of those people who encourages the behavior of poor sportsmanship in our political arena, you're probably also one of those people who allows it to occur in sports, whether professional or amateur. Shame on you, America. You're better than this. As always, don't forget to tune into my radio show, "THE STRIKE ZONE," live every Monday from 12-1pm ET on panjradio.com and streaming on the Apple/iTunes network and TuneIn.
In preparation for what should be an epic Game 7 of the 2016 World Series between two teams that have notorious droughts in baseball lore, I thought the excitement would be enough to take me through the day anxiously awaiting first pitch. Unfortunately, another story of poor sportsmanship ruined that and may have even altered some of my rooting interests. As a reminder, I have no dog in this fight. The Yankees are not in it. At most, I am a big Andrew Miller fan for his lack of ego. I also have a huge deal of respect for Terry Francona. I enjoy watching many of the Cleveland Indians players. I also enjoy watching Anthony Rizzo after his good sportsmanship story with Angel Hernandez provided organizations like mine (The OSIP Foundation, Inc.) with the story of a generation of how to promote good sportsmanship. I also applaud Ben Zobrist's versatility. I wish more players had his ability to move around the diamond. Oh yeah, Kris Bryant is a heck of a player too! If anything, I am constantly puzzled by Joe Maddon. Although he is an innovative thinker and a great speaker, I am constantly lost at how my alma mater, the treacherous Lafayette College, lauds him as the equivalent of Jesus Christ when he didn't even finish is degree there. He dropped out to pursue baseball, then never made it to the big leagues as a player. I also don't understand why Javier Baez is applauded when he still has enough baseball hubris to compare to Barry Bonds. And the media kills me with their undying love of the Cubs. All you hear about are the stories about how this could be the year. You always see the celebrities and the front office executives being shown as they root for the North Siders. Do the Indians get that type of treatment? No. Typical media bias. Yet, then I get word of a story like this, and everything gets thrown out the window. Unless you've been living under a rock for a few years (and I can't say I would blame you due to the political landscape), you're probably aware of the "Marlins Man." His real name is Laurence Leavy, and he's an attorney from Florida. He usually sits directly behind home plate at these big games (to be seen on camera), and he is draped in the brightest of orange as he wears the alternate jersey of the Miami Marlins (as well as a visor). (As a credit to him, his jersey has recently been of Jose Fernandez, and people across America are signing it.) One would come to expect that Marlins Man would be front and center at the World Series games. However, it was not meant to be this year. According to the story, Leavy attended a game at Progressive Field in June and was littered with abusive threats that caused him to seek the help of the police. It didn't stop there. Since then, Leavy was constantly bombarded with the same type of behavior via Twitter, all from the fans of the Indians. I'd repeat some of it here, but this is a family-oriented blog. I took the time to scroll through his Twitter feed to try to read some of it. Much of it was removed already by Leavy himself in order to avoid the negativity. But some remained, and it was bad. Go check it out for yourself if you'd like. Handle: @marlins_man As such, Leavy will not be attending any of the World Series because he fears for his safety, and I can't say I blame him. So what caused all this? Although I can't speak for everyone with hate in their hearts, it probably has something to do with 1997. That was the year the (then) Florida Marlins defeated the Cleveland Indians in 7 games in the World Series. Have Indians fans held on to this grudge for that long? It appears it may be so. Look, I understand the disappointment that comes with the letdown of getting so close only to have it vanish. There's something to be said about the idea that some people would rather not have their team make the playoffs if they don't have what it takes to win the whole thing. I remember the same feeling in 2003 when the same Florida Marlins beat the Yanks in 6 games. It's not a fun feeling. That being said, there's absolutely no reason to treat someone else that way simply because of someone's rooting interest. This is one of the staples of OSIP and why I started the organization. Sure, sometimes we kid with each other, but it never gets to the point of this type of nonsense. Even Leavy himself implores this sentiment. By the way, if you read some of the hate that follows that tweet, you'll understand why this has become so ridiculous. There are people endorsing the use of trash talking as part of sports. Now, let's play devil's advocate here. Some of the response is about people claiming Leavy is making it about himself. After all, why would wear such noticeable duds and sit in shot of the camera if you didn't want to be noticed? Is it about you or about something else? It's a fair point. It almost mirrors the argument that all of social media faces, in that it is a constant demand for attention so that people are noticed and recognized for reasons that serve the self. Do people need the endorsement of others in order to feel good about themselves? Perhaps this has some weight. And maybe Leavy himself will answer this question for us. (Maybe he'll even come on my radio show to discuss it.) But until we know that answer, let's consider how the good might outweigh the bad. When people become these icons and are given a forced celebrity status, they have the opportunity to promote good causes. It can be larger things, such as political candidates or charitable ventures, or it can be smaller social things, such as the memory of someone who has been lost tragically. It's not so much black and white as it is gray, especially when one of the major outcomes is a goal with a huge intrinsic value to the man himself: enjoying baseball! Hell, I might do the same thing if it meant I got to go to these great stadiums and watch the game I love. Leavy has taken on some of this himself. The amount of love and support poured out for Jose Fernandez has been a key to this. One of his tweets actually references how stupid mistakes should not change how much we love people. And yet some people (based on the responses to this tweet) continue to harp that Fernandez is now worthless because he made bad decisions. Yes, it's gray. Yes, it's tough. And we can be disappointed that he made these decisions under the circumstances. Personal responsibility is a thing that doesn't get enough attention these days. But tragedy is tragedy. So why the hate? Is it because people just can't walk away? Probably. If you don't like the Marlins Man, then don't follow him. Don't talk to him. Just respect everybody and enjoy the game. But some fans can't do that, perhaps out of a lack of self-respect that requires others to suffer in order for those people to feel good about themselves. What's even more unfortunate, though, is that some of Leavy's claims are backed up by another unfortunate story about a 7-year-old Cubs fan. Johnny Wallach got a ball from batting practice from Cubs outfielder Dexter Fowler (via another nice fan). He was at Progressive Field for his birthday watching his team (the Cubs) in Cleveland in the World Series. Unfortunately, he left in the first inning after being knocked out by an elbow to the face. He suffered a concussion, and nobody bothered to help him and his father, David. If you read the story, you'll get the full scoop. But the highlight (or low-light) is when the young kid was unconscious with his father and a police officer tending to him, only to have Indians fans shout obscenities while passing by. So it's not enough that your team is winning? You have to make sure a 7-year-old hears about it while he is unconscious? I picked Cleveland in 7 based on the on-field talent. Now I question that based on the above accounts. I may have written about this before, but based on what I'm seeing throughout social media and broadcasts of the playoffs, we need to address this again.
At the time of writing this, the 2016 MLB playoffs have completed both Wild Card games and Game 1 of both American League Division Series. Game 2 of the series between Texas and Toronto is approximately half complete. Every television broadcast of a playoff game thus far has included some form of a "strike zone" graphic. TBS uses the "TBStrike Zone;" ESPN uses "K Zone;" Fox uses "Fox Trax;" and nobody talks about how umpires call games. Well, let me amend that. Some of the commentators have made comments about the home plate umpires, and every single comment has been proven to be less than 100% accurate. Even Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay went off on Mike Winters, who was behind the plate for the NL Wild Card game, but kept calling him Bill Miller...it wasn't until I tweeted at him about his mistake that he finally caught the mistake. This fallacy of poor umpiring is being perpetuated by the networks who show the graphics of the pitches in relation to the strike zone, then further expanded when commentators try to discuss a topic about which they have no clue. Yes, I said it. As smart as someone like Ron Darling is, he, like everyone else in the booth, has no clue how umpires call balls and strikes. Darling is as smart as any analyst, and he can't get this right. On the other side, the ESPN crew of Dan Shulman, Aaron Boone, and Jessica Mendoza have a combined baseball I.Q. in the single digits. When people complain about Mendoza calling baseball games, they constantly reference the fact that she's a female. News flash: being a female has nothing to do whether you are qualified to call baseball games. People who know things about baseball are the ones qualified to do it, and those three simply do not have the knowledge required to competently call a game, regardless of gender. I don't care who calls a game, be it a man, woman, child, dog, cat, or alien...if they don't understand the game, I don't want to listen to them. And don't even get me started on Aaron Boone. Remember, this is the guy who scored 1 out of 10 on the infamous baseball quiz from Jayson Stark a few years ago. As for Dan Shulman, he's a Blue Jays broadcaster, and if you have read any of my articles on the Blue Jays, you know where I'm going. I'm sure they're all nice people, but when referencing the ability to understand how umpires call balls and strikes, none of these people understand. Back to balls and strikes... When these graphics shown on your television screen try to represent the strike zone, they show one zone that does not change according to the batter. Remember, the zone is defined in height by the midway point between the shoulders and the belt down to the hollow of the knee. Last time I checked, not every baseball player is the same height. Therefore, each hitter's zone will be different. Yet, the graphics you see do not change. Further, remember that the zone is three dimensional. Whether dealing with height or width, the graphic shows a two dimensional representation. Rarely will the graphics show you a precise path of where the ball traveled in relation to crossing any part of that zone. At no point are topics such as catcher reception, consistency and accuracy of the pitcher, and the mentality of the umpire discussed. People constantly discuss the fallacy of a catcher's ability to "frame" a pitch, which ultimately tries to trick an umpire into thinking a pitch was a strike when it really wasn't. What people don't understand is that a catcher who frames pitches is a catcher who actually loses strikes for his pitcher. If an umpire seeing the mitt of a catcher move immediately following the reception of a pitch, that usually tells an umpire that the pitch was out of the zone and the catcher felt like he had to move the mitt into the zone to make it look like a strike. (Conversely, if the mitt moves out of the zone on a borderline pitch, that tells the umpire the catcher also did not think it was a strike.) If a catcher simply "sticks it," that is, catches the pitch where it is thrown and holds the mitt perfectly still, the umpire is more likely to call that pitch a strike. Regarding the accuracy of a pitcher, some of the best pitchers would constantly get pitches called strikes that are clearly outside the zone based on their command of pitches and their ability to repeat location. The biggest example of this is Greg Maddux. Maddux had the insane ability to literally put the ball where he wanted it. He would begin the game by hitting the corners precisely. Then as he would get that pitch called a strike every time, he would move the pitch about a half inch off the plate. Guess what? The umpire would call that a strike too. After that was consistent, he would move it one inch off the plate. Before you knew it, any pitch that was not so far inside or outside to be hitting the white line of the batter's boxes would be called a strike. Finally, the mentality of an umpire plays a role that so many people simply do not understand as part of being human. Obviously, each umpire has a different interpretation of the strike zone, and many teams have developed scouting reports on each umpire. Some umpires give a little more off each corner; some call the high strike; some have a small zone. But what people do not consider are things such as nerves and pressure. Umpires are human. They desperately want to be perfect. People expect them to be perfect, then improve! So to criticize umpires for not being 100% accurate is really just a lack of human understanding and compassion. Any person who says someone should not be behind home plate because they're not 100% accurate probably shouldn't be trusted with anything in life! Consider these statistics. The league average for MLB umpires is around 90% accuracy for balls and strikes. If an umpire does better than 90%, he has done a fantastic job. MLB has a responsibility to assign umpires who have shown a consistency to call games at 90% accuracy or better; after that, let the chips fall where they may! Here are some more statistics, brought to us by our friends at Close Call Sports and the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: -Gary Cederstrom worked home plate in the AL Wild Card game. He had a 95.8% accuracy rating. -Mike Winters worked home plate in the NL Wild Card game. He had a 91.4% accuracy rating. -Chad Fairchild worked home plate for Game 1 between Texas and Toronto. He had a 96.2% accuracy rating. -Brian Knight worked home plate for Game 1 between Cleveland and Boston. He had a 96.9% accuracy rating. Summary: do your research. Don't listen to the commentary. Listen to those of us who actually strap it on and get behind the plate. Think outside the box. With a slow day in the baseball world mixed with my new obsession with David S. Pumpkins, I figured I would take a day to examine a few statistics with the MLB umps from this season's major festivities.
Including the All-Star Game and all postseason assignments (including replay), the busiest umpires were Sam Holbrook and Bill Welke. Holbrook worked the All-Star Game, the Division Series, and will work the World Series. Welke worked the All-Star Game, the Wild Card round, and the Championship Series. The following umpires did not receive any special assignments this year: Dale Scott, Brian O'Nora, Ed Hickox, Mike DiMuro, Jerry Layne, Fieldin Culbreth, Rob Drake, Dana DeMuth, Jerry Meals, Andy Fletcher, Greg Gibson, Dan Iassogna, Bob Davidson, Jim Joyce, D.J. Reyburn, Jordan Baker, John Tumpane, Mike Estabrook, Doug Eddings, Mark Ripperger, James Hoye, Lance Barrett, and Tim Timmons. In trying to analyze and explain the selections, let's discuss a few things. First and foremost, Rob Drake did not receive an assignment as he grieves from the sudden passing of his wife. I can only imagine what he must be feeling. I'm glad he is home spending time with his family in this difficult time, and we send our condolences to him. D.J. Reyburn, Jordan Baker, John Tumpane, Mark Ripperger, and Lance Barrett are the new kids on the block, having been recently hired full-time by MLB, so it makes sense why they take a back seat to the veterans. We also don't know which of these umpires were ineligible for assignments based on not working the minimum number of games for the season, but based on the statistics of how many plate assignments they had, it's safe to assume that Mike DiMuro, Ed Hickox, and Brian O'Nora fall into that category. Further, Jerry Lane and Dale Scott suffered multiple head injuries this year, resulting in both having to leave a few games; when head injuries come into play like that, taking an October off isn't the worst thing! So who does that leave? These guys: Dale Scott, Fieldin Culbreth, Dana DeMuth, Jerry Meals, Andy Fletcher, Greg Gibson, Dan Iassogna, Bob Davidson, Jim Joyce, Mike Estabrook, Doug Eddings, James Hoye, and Tim Timmons. Now, remember, we're speculating here. But if you know a little about these umpires, you might get a little surprised to see some of these names on the list. A good chunk of these guys have already officiated World Series games, so why nothing this year? Well, it could be as simple as asking for time off. Don't forget how grueling the season is for umpires, especially with no home field. When you're essentially living out of a suitcase for six months, asking to go home to see your family is a nice respite. But consider these facts. Dale Scott led the league with 8 ejections, tied with Todd Tichenor, but half of Tichenor's came in the brawl between the Yankees and Blue Jays in September. Scott's crew mate Dan Iassogna led the league with 31 replays (along with 5 ejections). Right behind Iassogna? Tim Timmons with 30 replays (and 3 ejections). If you follow the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League on Close Call Sports, you can see the scoring system that is based on ejections and replays. Umpires receive points when their ejections are justified since their call was right as well as when a challenged and replayed call was affirmed for their initial call being right. Further, crew chiefs are rewarded when their crew mates do well. So if you happen to look at the crew chiefs and their scoring for being the leader of their crews (whether assigned or acting in the absence of the actual chief), the top five umpires with the worst scores are Iassogna, Jerry Meals, Fieldin Culbreth, Jim Joyce, and Scott. Out of all the umpires we haven't mentioned yet, the following umpires did not receive any special assignments last year or this year: Andy Fletcher, Bob Davidson, and Doug Eddings. So what does all this mean? Extrapolating based solely on what we know, it seems like Major League Baseball is sticking to its guns about the best umpires getting the important games. Prior to the 2010 season, MLB had a rubric they used to determine umpire selection for special assignments. It included: -If an umpire worked the All-Star Game, he was ineligible to work the postseason. -The six umpires assigned to the World Series would be the crew chiefs for the crews assigned to the Championship Series and Division Series. Those umpires had to be regular season crew chiefs themselves. -If an umpire worked the World Series one year, he was ineligible to work the World Series the following year. (This one still stands.) However, complaints during the 2009 postseason forced the hand of MLB to make changes to the protocol because their system spread the wealth too much. Not all umpires were created equal, so it was necessary to reward umpires who were having good years and try as best as possible to put the best umpires on the best games. Further, it was important to get some of the younger guys into the mix so they didn't feel discouraged and still had room to grow. So, the only protocol that stayed the same was that umpires were not allowed to work two consecutive World Series. With the addition of the Wild Card games, new protocols were added, including: -Umpires cannot work consecutive series within the same postseason. So if an umpire is going to work multiple series in the postseason, he can either work the Wild Card game and then the Championship Series, or he can work the Division Series and then the World Series. -Umpires who the league wants to begin to get some postseason work will start with assignments down the outfield lines for the Wild Card games, followed by assignments as the sixth umpire (starting down the right field line) in the Division Series. -It is preferable that approximately half of the World Series umpires have not worked a World Series before (when possible). With these new protocols, it makes sense that a simple rotation of umpires is the explanation as to why certain qualified umpires did not get special assignments, even after a decent season. After all, some of the umpires who received special assignments this year were only assigned to be the replay official for some series and were not actually on the field for any games, such as Gerry Davis, who is the second longest tenured umpire behind Joe West. The third longest tenured umpire? Dana DeMuth. But in addition to the statistics above about certain umpires just not having good years regarding a ton of ejections and replays that were overturned, some umpires just have reputations that prevent them from being considered (unofficially, of course) by MLB. Bob Davidson falls into that category based on his history. Jim Joyce unfortunately is falling into that category, especially after missing the call on the foul ball between Cleveland and Houston. Jerry Meals and Fieldin Culbreth also have had similar situations in recent history, even though Meals worked the 2014 World Series; perhaps he just had a bad year. So the big question: are these new protocols working? Are the best umpires getting the best games, and are the games being officiated correctly? In short, so far! Every home plate umpire in the postseason this year has scored better than 90% accuracy thus far. Any of the questionable calls that the media has picked up as problematic were actually the right call. Replay has fixed the obvious missed calls. What MLB has done is implement a system of capitalism for special assignments, moving away from a form of socialism. You want a big assignment? Show the league you deserve it by having a good year. After all, getting the calls right is what matters. On Thursday, umpire Jim Joyce found himself in the middle of yet another controversy involving a blown call. But thanks to the fact that it was Jim Joyce who faced this issue, we have the opportunity to see the silver lining in this mess.
First, let's give you a little background. Jim Joyce (#66) has been an MLB umpire since 1987. In every single poll taken of MLB players and coaches, he is constantly voted one of the best (if not the best) umpire based on his professionalism, hustle, and fairness. He works harder than anyone to make sure he is never doubted when he officiates. He will give every player and coach the opportunity to explain themselves when conflict arises, and he offers calm and thorough explanations whenever asked. In fact, after the game in question Thursday, Indians manager Terry Francona, whose team benefited from the blown call, said of Joyce, "I will say, that guy behind the plate [Joyce] gives you as good an effort and is as conscientious as any umpire I've ever been around. And there have been calls that have gone against us with him. It's just hard to get mad at him, because he gives you everything you ever ask for." Joyce gained unfortunate attention on June 2, 2010, when his blown call cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Needing only one more out for a perfect game, Joyce called the final batter-runner safe at first when the call really wasn't even that close. After seeing the replay, a tearful Joyce admitted to the media after the game that he cost Galarraga the perfect game. What made the situation beautiful, however, was the tearful confrontation the next day. After working first base during Galarraga's game, Joyce had the plate the next day. When the umpires came out for the pregame conference, Galarraga was assigned to bring out the lineup card for his Detroit Tigers. With tears flowing, Joyce hugged Galarraga, exhibiting one of the ultimate examples of superb sportsmanship in history. (Keep in mind, too, that instant replay did not exist in baseball at that time. Had it been available, this would not be a story.) Back to Thursday. According to the description given by Brian McTaggart on his MLB.com article, "The Indians had a 2-1 lead over the Astros in the third and had the bases loaded with two outs when Astros rookie pitcher David Paulino bounced a breaking ball in the dirt. The ball struck the bat of Lonnie Chisenhall on a check swing, but no foul ball was called by plate umpire Jim Joyce. Francisco Lindor scored from third base and Mike Napoli raced from second to score on what was ruled a wild pitch. Jose Ramirez, who was on first, went all the way to third before Joyce called time in the confusion. "Astros catcher Jason Castro never went to chase the ball, certain it had been fouled, and even reached out his hand for a new ball. Hinch immediately bolted from the dugout to talk to Joyce and eventually was ejected. "The crew on the field huddled and finally went to the headset for a rules check to confirm that a potential foul tip is non-reviewable per the replay regulations. The crew also asked for post-play runner placement after time had been called, and Ramirez was sent back to second. "Joyce told a pool reporter he didn't see the ball hitting the bat. "'And then I went to each crew member and asked them the same thing,' Joyce said. 'If any of them had it hitting the bat, I would have turned around and called a foul ball. My partners couldn't help me on it. Since I called timeout, I scored two runs and put the other guy on [second].' "The veteran umpire, who hadn't seen the replay of the play immediately after the game, said he called timeout after two runs had scored because Castro was emphatically trying to discuss with him what was going on. "'I'm not going to let bases loaded, keep rolling,' Joyce said. 'To use a little bit of common sense and some fair play on that one, I wanted to call time and figure out what had happened.'" So what did we learn from all this? Joyce missed a pretty obvious call. But remember the days before instant replay when umpires missed calls and nothing changed except a manager got run? It happened. And it can still happen. See, instant replay, like so many other things in life, is a tool, not a crutch. The goal of replay is to attempt to get calls right as best as possible so long as they are within the rules governing how replay can be used. Too frequently, the attitude of players, coaches, and fans alike is that replay is supposed to be a magical cure to the ailment that is the blown call. And it's simply not the case. The best analogy I can give regarding a comparison to replay is that of an anti-depressant. The drug is not meant to be the cure to the problem at hand; it is not meant to be used as a crutch that will automatically allow the person taking it to suddenly be relieved of the symptoms that caused the original diagnosis and prescription. Instead, the drug is meant to act as a tool that will allow the person taking it to alleviate the road blocks that have prevented the person from addressing the problems at hand that led to said diagnosis. The casual baseball fan (and, to an extent, the casual sports fan who sees replay used in other sports) probably thinks that replay was allowed so as to not let the wrong call stand. This assumption is what leads to the unwarranted frustration of fans. Further, when replay was introduced into baseball, the governing powers that be clearly stated that the introduction of replay would be a process with a fair amount of trial and error. It would not be a perfect system, and it would probably take at least three years to get it close to some definition of "right." Even now, we see that replay may need some tweaks to the system, and this play may be the evidence needed. But due to the circumstances now, there is absolutely no justified reason to get upset at Joyce or anyone else over this blown call. Was it the wrong call? Yes. But it could not be reviewed. Consider this as well. Joyce went above and beyond to try to get the call right. He consulted with each of his partners so as to ask for any help. He went to the headsets to talk to the umpires in New York to make sure that he could not review it. His goal was not to screw the Astros. His goal was to do everything in his power to rectify an honest mistake. Of course, Astros manager A.J. Hinch was not happy. Who would be happy in that scenario? He came out to argue, which Joyce clearly allowed. But after both Joyce and Hinch had said enough, Joyce drew the line in the sand, much like Mike Everitt did with Victor Martinez a few Saturdays ago. Hinch didn't leave, which prompted Joyce to eject him for not allowing the game to continue. In fact, if you read Hinch's lips, he actually accepted the ejection, almost agreeing with it. The point is that Jim Joyce did his job to the best of his ability. He tried his damnedest. He missed a call. Everyone in history has made a mistake before. We should be thankful that Joyce's mistake was during a baseball game and not while doing something that could actually cause physical harm. Further, the rules were clearly followed with regard to instant replay and trying to rectify the situation. And if anybody deserves praise for how he handles mistakes, it's Jim Joyce. |
Archives
February 2024
Categories
All
|